Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

While dove hunting I've been stung by birdshot several times. Some people never look where they are shooting. I thumped one guy up side the head and he went home. Not bad after that. I have a two strikes rule.

Exactly and some states are a hell of a lot stronger on private property rights. I know here in the south what it says on the books and what is actually true is two different things, judges here are pretty pro property rights and unless it was the cops spying on other people's property is pretty much a big no no, especially screwing with the hunters.

And do these "animal rights" bunches know what will happen if you get rid of the hunters? i do because deer hunting was banned for a couple of years here while a court case was being fought, what you ended up with was huge herds of sickly starving deer running into the streets and causing quite a few accidents and a couple of deaths. Whether they like it or not unless they are willing to MASSIVELY repopulate predators like panthers, cougars, bears, wolves, and deal with the "Little Suzy was eaten by a bear" stories since we humans are fat and slow when little thus perfect predator chow? Well then you are just gonna have to put up with the hunters, because the game animals breed like bunnies because of thousands of years of dealing with large amounts of predators that just don't exist in the wild in the numbers to keep their population in check.

so while I don't personally hunt (sitting out in the cold woods for hours freezing my nuts off ain't my thing) I personally have no problem with them,k because i know without them you'll have a huge overpopulation problem very quickly.

They need to require them to kill a doe for every buck they kill. These trophy hunters only want big bucks with a huge rack and so the deer are still way overpopulated. I dodged two the other night that tried their best to run into my car.

There are different tags for doe vs. buck to account for this, the DNR isn't stupid. For every "trophy buck hunter" there are 10 guys who just want venison in the freezer and would much rather take the easier deer.

Exactly, they give out more doe than buck tags for precisely that reason, to insure the herds stay at manageable levels. And you are right about deer being smart, my mom doesn't allow hunting on her land and one herd has figured this out so a large buck with a flock of does pretty much camp in her backyard on hunting season. my GF loves to have us stay the night at mom's just so she can have her early morning cup of coffee while watching the herd, they are smart enough to realize we aren't a threat and will

I think it's obvious that a 747 flying at 30,000 ft isn't trespassing... but it also seems obvious that somone on a hovercreaft skimming along a couple inches above the ground is. A drone weaving through your trees "feels" like tresspassing, but maybe one a couple hundred feet up wouldn't be?

It does bring up an interesting question about where the distinction lies, what altitude is considered "public" vs "private"?

Of course if the drone is camera equipped (almost guaranteed) you may be able to skip tresspassing rules and use peeping tom type laws against it at almost any altitude if it's filming parts of your property that would otherwise be private...

Well, there's also the fact that a 747 isn't spying on you - or even potentially spying on you. If someone's flying a drone on your property with the intention of watching you without your permission, I think they've definitely crossed a line. Also, is shooting pigeons a crime? If not, this also clearly differentiates the action from police investigation (assuming it's legitimate/lawful monitoring).

I don't know about the US, but in the UK the regulations are very specific: Feral pigeons are a pest species, to be destroyed by any lawful means; this includes destruction of eggs/nests, preventive measures on building overhangs against roosting birds (pigeons are by nature cliff dwellers), and shooting them. If a pigeon is on your land (owner or tenant) or you have the authorisation by the landowner to be on his land with a firearm of whatever description covered by whatever ticket necessary (air rifles over 12fpe and pistols over 6fpe require a class 1 firearms ticket, those below require no licence whatsoever), and you have the means to destroy it with a clean shot you're pretty much obliged by Law to do precisely that.

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; generalExcept when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes;(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.(c) Over other than congested areas.An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.

Skilled helicopter pilots routinely practice autogyro landings to stay sharp. The best I've known could drive a construction marker spike into the ground with his skid while autogyroing (again to stay sharp). Granting he was a retired helicopter test pilot.

The deadmans curve is altitude _or_ forward motion. If you have ether you can autogyro.

You have complete control when autogyroing, what you don't have is a second shot. Just like gliding in a fixed wing.

Why do you think those provisions for helicopters were put in the FAA regulations specifically quoting "The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure.".

hint: google auto-rotation

ps: the tail rotor is used to counter the torque produced by the engine spinning the rotors. No engine power, no tail rotor power required (helicopters don't need to point in the direction you want them to go)

In Florida v. Riley, the US Supreme Court found it was permissible for a police officer to observe inside a greenhouse through the open roof from a helicopter circling the property at 400ft.

The court said that helicopters are not bound by the lower limits of the navigable airspace allowed to other aircraft and that any member of the public could legally have been flying over the property at that time.

I think a lot of weight was given to the fact it was lawful in the jurisdiction for the off

If the 747 is flying at 1000 feet, probably, and you can almost certainly sue them for something.

There's ceilings where it becomes a common resource. Public airspace. But depending on your jursidiction, you do "own" up to a certain altitude over your land. Of course, it depends on where you are, and the type of land contract you have. Most of us don't own what's under our land, for example.

At the same time, the hunters may have criminal liability too... depending on the specific of where they were shooting.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand the club is not responsible if something (or someone) maliciously trespasses, crosses the marked safety line and enters the target area.

The shooters at any range are required to stop firing if they observe a non-target object at the range. However a helicopter can be easily mistaken for a game bird, especially if those birds were intentiona

In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators — typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground.

This issue is well-established in law. Ever seen those balloon rides or events? They tend to land on private property. In fact, it's pretty much inevitable. You know what happens? Nothing. The police don't show up. The land owner doesn't shoot the balloons out of the sky. Strangely, people seem to act civilized (shocking, I know). On occasion, the balloon chase vehicle and pilot need to pay for property damage, because they do land in crop fields from time to time, but this is well-understood by all parties to be the cost of doing business -- hand shakes resolve these issues more than lawsuits.

Then you have animal rights activists. They take a position not supported by law (pidgeon shoots are legal) and then fly a loud mini-copter with surveillance gear over an area filled with dozens to hundreds of sharpshooters who disagree with their position. And they then acted shocked and dismayed when their toys get shot down and the police do nothing. News flash: The police don't have to investigate any crime. They have broad discretion. Know why? Because your neighbors dropping the bass at 2am may not be as important as the shots fired call four blocks away. And just about everything is more important than some inflammatory political activists pissing off their neighbors on purpose to try and make something that's legal now illegal tomorrow. If I'm a police officer, I'm going to be dragging my ass responding to any call you make, if I respond at all... because you're being a nuisance. This is like insulting the girl hanging off Mike Tyson's arm. Dude, you're gonna lose.

And just about everything is more important than some inflammatory political activists pissing off their neighbors on purpose to try and make something that's legal now illegal tomorrow.
How is spying on somebody who is obeying the law supposed to help make the activity illegal? Shouldn't they be spending all that time writing their congresscritters? Of course, the answer is "no", because what they are trying to do is paint the shooters in a bad light. Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke... Wham "Ow mommy, he hit me!" Then post a slashdot article and presto! Instant support for your position.

A review of the comments so far seems to suggest very little support either for their political position or their method of surveillance. Perhaps they believe negative publicity is still better than no publicity.

Traditionally a balloon pilot carried a cold bottle of a nice sparkling wine to give to the landowner. Ballooning started in France, so I'd guess that was to keep the landowner from surrendering after being invaded by air.

The fact that balloon owners tend to pay for damages (as they are usually loaded and have a valuable balloon they need to get off the land) keeps lawsuits down. I'd be surprised if they didn't happen anyhow. They have some control of where they land, but shit happens. I've seen them hun

On occasion, the balloon chase vehicle and pilot need to pay for property damage, because they do land in crop fields from time to time, but this is well-understood by all parties to be the cost of doing business -- hand shakes resolve these issues more than lawsuits.

I've heard, although it may not be true, that the origin of the term "buying the farm" was from the early days of aviation when emergency landings in farmer's fields were common. Aviators were naturally expected to pay for the damages. If they crashed, they would be figuratively causing enough damage to need to "buy the farm". Posthumously, of course.

It's not so much that they unilaterally ignore it, it's that every police department has limited resources with which to respond to any collection of situations. They implicitly have to choose between sending officers to investigate a downed hunter-heckling drone versus responding to car accidents, domestic abuse, or even traffic violations. Which do you think they are likely to feel is a better use of their limited resources?

In effect, wolf-cryers get ignored. It's not due to a policy decision to do so, b

Right from the FAA (and seeing how this "drone" is setup, I'd have to guess it would fall under the Helicopter section)

This is the FARIf you're interested, shown below is Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 of theGeneral Operating and Flight Rules which specifically prohibits low-flying aircraft.91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; generalExcept when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below thefollowing altitudes;(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power uni

Ya... no shit are they going to go after people who shoot prairie dogs on their land? Those people have some pretty good reasons for doing so...
Animal rights groups are so hard to take serious because of people like this, I'm sure the owner of the drone worked hard for the 4k it cost... or more than likely just asked daddy. There's actual work that can be done to help the environment and the planet, spying on flying rat shooters doesn't make the top 100 even.

I'm trying to convince my co-worker to let me take some that has invaded his shed. He lives way out in the country, I'd absolutely eat a pigeon that has been eating seeds and bugs. I wouldn't eat the city birds that eat garbage and live in over populated disease filled roosts.

The Philadelphia Enquirer reported that SHARK lobbied the Pennsylvania statehouse in January, seeking legislation that would end pigeon shooting in the state. These hunting events involve capturing or breeding pigeons in cages, and releasing a large number of birds from cages to immediately be shot or wounded by hunters.

Pigeon shooting opponents contend that these events violate animal cruelty laws, and SHARK has used aerial footage obtained from drones to strengthen that argument.

“the predictable outrage generated by gruesome videos showing captive pigeons getting released from wooden crates, attempting to fly away, only to get blasted within seconds by a shooter who’s apparently only a few yards away, reinforces both the ethical stance and the financial status of animal activists who want to ban not just canned hunting but much of animal agriculture,” read an editorial in the Drovers CattleNetwork, a beef industry news periodical.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of the practice on practical grounds (what if the pigeon gets away? you're adding to the pest pigeon population, since these are bred, not captured), but I'd say that if it's private property, drones like this deserve to be shot down.

Wild pigeons? As in ones that live on insects and seeds and the like? Hell yeah, it's like extra-gamey pheasant, quite a livery taste, very nice indeed. If you want to eat a little more efficiently then go for something bigger like goose, but pigeon is very nice indeed. I wouldn't recommend the city variety though, never tasted it but I'm sure it's not as good for you...

Let's see here... an animal rights group flying a camera drone over private property full of gun-loving people they happen to have pissed off... yeah, um, how else would that turn out?

Need I remind the tree-huggers that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results? Or maybe they're getting the exact result they really want - lots of publicity for the low, low price of $4000 a pop.

This is a pretty good publicity stunt if your intended market would be those who are easily swayed that the hunters are doing something illegal. And the craft can probably be recovered and repaired, so you are not out the full 4k.

One other fact nobody has mentioned is that by flying this over people, PETA is also violating several provisions of the code of conduct established b the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) intended to help keep the public safe. Model helicopters in the $4K range are no-joke dangerous if they hit someone. This sort of activity (especially using a helicopter to harass people) puts at risk the rights of geeks everywhere to build and fly model aircraft, by encouraging legislators and bureaucrats to pass new laws and regulations.

Birds are not shot with rifles, they are shot with shotguns, also sometimes called scatter guns. These are smooth bore weapons, no rifling, that can fire out "shot" which is a collection of small pellets. How small varies depending on the shot load. For bird hunting "birdshot" is used. The largest would be about 4mm though that is rarely used, more commonly it is around 2.5mm. The purpose of this is threefold:

1) To increase the area of effect. Point shooting a small, moving, target is very hard. Shot spreads out and thus provides a wider hitbox. It makes it far easier.

2) To decrease damage to the target. A high powered rifle round could annihilate much of a bird, rendering any meat one might get useless (remember this was all developed back when it was hunting for sustenance). Light shot causes shallower wounds.

3) Safety. So long as the gun is fired above the horizon, it is of no danger. The shot is metal spheres, and thus cannot maintain a ballistic trajectory. Due to their small size, they are very subject to friction and lose their kinetic energy quickly. When they fall to the ground, they are not dangerous.

So no, there will be no problems with someone missing and hitting a neighbour. For a bullet to be dangerous over long distances it needs to be fired from a rifled weapon. The spin stabilizes it and allows it to maintain a ballistic trajectory and thus its energy even over very long distance. Thus when fired at an upward angle it could indeed fly for a long time and hit with lethal force.

For all those reasons, you'll see something like this done with 12ga shotguns loaded with #6-8 birdshot, not a 7.62x51mm rifle loaded with BTHP rounds.

Bit of advice: When shooting at targets in the air, hunters generally use a shotgun, IE a smoothbore firearm loaded with little balls of lead or bismuth* alloys. In any case, shotguns loaded with shot are hazardous for far shorter distances, which is why you're allowed to fire them into the air.

Given that they were hunting pigeons, shooting at the drone with a rifle would require the 'dipshit' to go back to his vehicle or building and retrieve a rifle, and it's a tough shot.

It's far more likely many of the hunters 'donated' a shot or two at the drone with their pigeon guns. Pigeons relatively small birds, a commonly recommended size [chuckhawks.com] is #7.5. As Dick Cheney [apfn.org] so ably demonstrated while hunting quail using the same #7.5 shot you'd expect for pigeon, you can easily survive being shot in the face with it merely 30 yards away.

Given the way the protestors tend to operate, I can fully believe them going 'closer! closer! to the point that the drone ends up within easy range** even for short range shot. Then it's just a matter of a 'lucky hit', which isn't hard when each shot is tossing ~250 pellets at the target.

*Less enivornmentally hazardous than lead.**With this type of shot, it's more a question of penetration at range than the hitting itself. If they're not doing enough damage, I'd imagine that a few might of had some shells loaded with larger pellets, perhaps #4-5, which would have more energy out that far, at the expense of fewer balls.

A squirrel-long helicopter would be not easy to hit at 150 yards with a rifle even if the helicopter is sitting still on the ground. You'd need the rifle set up for this distance, with a known round, and with correct adjustment of the scope. You'd need a tripod, if not a bench vise. Hunters take varmints like that in 200-300 yards, but not always with one shot, and not without carefully zeroing the scope. Hitting the helicopter in the battery with a single shot from a standing position, with no support, sh

Sure the pigeon shooters seems like a bunch of idiots. I support there right to be idiots with animals they own as long as it's not animal cruelty which it does not seem to be. I oppose people thinking it's OK to take video and photo's of an area with a presumption of privacy. I'm ok with them shooting it down but I also ok with shooting an apparently of age peeping tom.

since it's not clear when to apply it, vs. "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

I don't see any contradiction between the two. If at first you don't succeed, try again, but don't continue trying to do exactly the same thing. There has to be some variable involved that gives you reason to think your next attempt may be different than what has come before. If the variable is your skill or ability, then repeated attempts may ultimately lead to success, so try again. Even if there's just an element of randomness which assures different outcomes, and the degree of possible variation is sufficient that some trial may have success, then persistence makes sense. But if it's clear that there are no variables capable of significantly changing the outcome then it's absolutely true that expecting a different result is a useful definition of "insanity", in the sense of a disconnection from reality.

In this particular case I think both sides know exactly what to expect each time the drone goes out, so let's put that aside.

Usually, the odds of success in a random process, and whether there are variables capable of significantly changing the outcome, are the exact things you don't get to know in advance. I am talking about complex issues like raising a troubled child, or what to do about the Iraq war in 2006, or whether repeated drone-shootdowns a the gun club are swaying public opinion. The Einstein

Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes. Title 34 Pa.C.S.A. Game. Chapter 23. Hunting and Furtaking. Subchapter A. General Provisions. Â 2302. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited

Citation: PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. Â 2302

Summary: This reflects Pennsylvania's hunter harassment law. It is unlawful for another person at the location where the activity is taking place to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title. Activities prohibited by this law include: driving or disturbing wildlife for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife; blocking, impeding or harassing a person engaged in lawful taking; using various stimuli to affect wildlife behavior to hinder lawful taking; and interjecting oneself into the line of fire, among other activities. Violation of this section is a summary offense of the second degree. A person adversely affected by prohibited activities may bring an action to restrain such conduct and to recover damages.

What makes you think the shooters would need anything more than birdshot for a flying bit of ABS plastic, nylon, and a lithium battery and a couple of PCB boards? If you could hit it, a single BB or pellet from a decent-quality air rifle or a "wrist-rocket"-type slingshot could take one of those quad-rotor R/C models out.

If the hunters were smart, they'd get themselves a net-gun and capture these things mostly intact, then sell them on Ebay to finance more live pigeon shoots while loudly and publicly crediting this animal rights group for helping sponsor them.

?? It was clearly a 12guage.The best weapon to take down an object of that size at that distance would be a 12 gauge with a choke and birdshot. That's exactly what they used. A rifle would be stupid... hard to hit a flying target and do less damage.

From reading TFA I don't know what they're complaining about - they were able to make a nuisance of themsleves over private property for most of the day. That it took so long for the drone to be shot down tends to indicate that otherwise the antics of the drone operators are not having that much of an impact and they are desperate to get their aircraft shot down for the publicity.

Once an activist group get themselves a contrived title, they think they're a supreme deity....

I love animals too. But, pigeon shootings? The town council in most small towns would buy the shells if you would kill the pigeons that flock to the town square. Sorry about their little toy helicopter, but you get what you deserve.

The 'hunters', and I use that word loosely, seem to be growing pigeons in cages and releasing them from crates, whereupon they are shot by people standing a few yards away. 'Canned hunting' they call it. Idiot rednecks I call it.

Yea, canned hunts suck. But to each their own. It's still not illegal... in fact, that makes it even more legal because they're "property" and not wildlife. This groups free to lobby their congressmen to get the law changed. That's assuming he doesn't pull out a shotgun as well.

(i am a hunter, but i also ENJOY the hunt, and i EAT what i shoot), I can see why they do it.

If you're a hunter you are probably aware of the many rules and reglations surrounding hunting, to make sure that animals don't suffer unneccesarily. For example hereabouts you can't use a triple hook to foul hook a freshwater fish, you can't bowhunt deer, and so on. Likewise you can't privately breed dogs to tear each other apart in private pit fights on your private property. If you do, you'll be arrested and imprisoned, and rightly so.

I mean what, aren't there enough wild pigeons to hunt? Are they too ch

Umm, they're already out there "wasting" ammo and time shooting pigeons. The drone is just a free (and probably quite satisfying) target. It's probably much easier to hit than the pigeons, BUT you get to watch the bird's-eye video on the Internet later.

So who's bright idea was it to choose a robot flying thing as the weapon of choice against a bunch of rednecks with guns who enjoy shooting at flying things... hey if we send up enough robots they will eventually run out of ammo and have to leave the pigeons alone!

As the Cat from Red Dwarf would say... I know this game, its called gun and pigeon, and there is only one way to win... don't be the pigeon... well unless you believe those lying cartoons.

So, let me get this right, people who are both trespassing and spying get mad that their "drone" gets shot down? There's nothing legitimate about using a "drone" like this. Just because someone happens to be an "activist" doesn't mean they get a free pass to spy on people and trespass on their property.

“the predictable outrage generated by gruesome videos showing captive pigeons getting released from wooden crates, attempting to fly away, only to get blasted within seconds by a shooter who’s apparently only a few yards away, reinforces both the ethical stance and the financial status of animal activists who want to ban not just canned hunting but much of animal agriculture,” read an editorial in the Drovers CattleNetwork, a beef industry news periodical."

In other words, they're not killing pests. They are doing absolutely nothing to improve the environment. They are purposely breeding these birds in captivity, then releasing and redmisting them, for the sole purpose of their own entertainment.

I'm sorry, but these arn't hunters. They're 5 year olds in grown up redneck bodies who are too stupid to figure out the controls on an X-Box.

But what they are doing is still perfectly legal, and the idiots that are harassing them are even bigger idiots than they are. Flying a surveillance drone over private property, knowing that the owner is armed and does not consent, is dumb. Crying about it when they inevitably and properly blow your stupid drone out of the air is great though. It would serve Steve Hindi right if they shot him instead of his toy. Not that I would encourage

Without commenting on the activity, I'll give my experience with this... When I was on the farm, groups of guys used to some around with giant nets and ask to capture all the pigeons in our barn. Theyd hang the net from the roof and spook the birds, causing them to fly across the barn into the net and be captured. We always let them, as it saved us the trouble of poisoning the disease infested things before they crapped all over everything.

âoeThe shooting of pigeons in Pennsylvania is unquestionably legal,â the release stated. Efforts by Seeton and others to persuade the Pennsylvania General Assembly to ban pigeon shooting failed as recently as December 2011.

The DAâ(TM)s office agreed however that efforts must be made to ensure that animals wounded but not killed by shotgun are humanely killed. Gun clubs must conduct a complete search of their property and adjacent areas for the purpose of retrieving wounded birds at the end of the pigeon shoot.

And good luck getting pigeon shooting banned in PA, or any other kind of shooting and hunting. The first day of deer season is a state holiday, for instance.

If I fly a drone in my neighbor girl's backyard who likes to sunbathe in the nude is that OK? Oh wait, that is obviously private property and makes me a peeping tom. Hmmm, can I fly a drone over the fence into a nudist colony then and take pictures there? Hmm... still seems wrong huh? Is it not wrong if everyone had clothes on? I mean, until I started trespassing I didn't know one way or the other.

People like this group disgust me. Likely as much as anyone who eats meat disgusts this rabid group of vegan hippies who have nothing better to do then attempt to dictate to some hunters that they shouldn't kill a bunch of rats with wings. What also disgusts me is that anyone would farm grow such vermin (outside of medical testing), but that is another discussion entirely.

I don't really support them. I just don't care about the pigeons. I do care about their right to privacy, and do see the operators of the UAV to be antagonistic trespassers. Perhaps you don't like privacy, or perhaps believe violating privacy is OK when used against a minority you do not like. Which is it Falconhell?

Lost in the discussion of legality and ethics is a simple question: what kind of pussy needs pigeons released from a box at short range to score a kill? Why not just shoot them in the box and call yourself an accomplished sportsman?